Author
Abstract
Sepsis is a very fatal disease, causing a lot of causalities all over the world, about 2, 70,000 die of Sepsis annually, thus early detection of Sepsis disease would be a remedy to prevent this disease and it would be a big relief to the family of sepsis patients. Different researchers have worked on sepsis disease detection and its prediction but still the need to have an improved model for Sepsis detection remains. We compared various machine learning algorithms for Sepsis detection and used the dataset publicly available for all the researchers at Physionet.org, the dataset contains many empty or Null values, we applied backward filling and forward filling techniques, and we calculated missing values of MAP using equation (1) which gives more precise results, we divided the 40,336 files of datasets A and B into 80% training set and 20% testing set. We applied the algorithms twice one time using vital signs and clinical values of patients and the second time using only vital signs of the patients; using vital signs only the training accuracy of KNN, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, MLP, and Decision Trees was 0.992, 0.999, 0.981, 0.981, and 0.981 respectively, while the testing accuracy of KNN, Logistic Regression, Random Forest, MLP, and Decision Trees was 0.987, 0.980, 0.983, 0.981, and 0.981 respectively, for Sepsis Label 0, the value of precision for KNN, Random Forest, Decision Trees, Logistic Regression, and MLP was 0.99, 0.98, 0.98, 0.98, and 0.98 respectively, while the value of recall for KNN, Random Forest, Decision Trees, Logistic Regression, and MLP was 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, 1.00, and 1.00 respectively; the comparison of all the above-mentioned algorithms showed that KNN leads over all the competitors regarding the accuracy, precision, and recall.
Suggested Citation
Asad Ullah, Huma Qayyum, Farman Hassan, Muhammad Khateeb Khan, Auliya Ur Rahman, 2022.
"Comparison of Machine Learning Algorithms for Sepsis Detection,"
International Journal of Innovations in Science & Technology, 50sea, vol. 4(1), pages 175-188, February.
Handle:
RePEc:abq:ijist1:v:4:y:2022:i:1:p:175-188
Download full text from publisher
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:abq:ijist1:v:4:y:2022:i:1:p:175-188. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Iqra Nazeer (email available below). General contact details of provider: .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.